Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/20/2001 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of Adjustmentsi MINUTES Zoning Board of Adjustment July 10, 2001 �. CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 6:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Acting Chairman Lewis, Sheffy & Alternate Members Birdwell, Goss & Corley. MEMBERS ABSENT: Chairman Hill & Richards. STAFF PRESENT: Staff Assistant Grace, Staff Planner Timmerson, City Attorney Cargill, and Development Services Customer Service Representative Messarra. AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Call to order — Explanation of functions of the Board. Acting Chairman Lewis called the meeting to order. AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Consider any absence request forms. Mr. Goss made the motion to approve the absences of Board Members Hill & Richards. Mr. Birdwell seconded the motion, which passed unopposed (5-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Approval of minutes from May 1, 2001 meeting of the Board. ` Mr. Birdwell made the motion to approve the minutes as presented. Mr. Corley seconded the motion, which passed unopposed (5-0). AGENDA ITEM NO, 4: Consideration of a parking island variance for 400 Harvey Road. Applicant is Bob R Davis. Staff Planner Jimmerson stepped before the Board and presented the staff report. Ms. Jiimmerson told the Board that the applicant is requesting the variance to allow for two- (2) end islands to be permitted at less than the City requirement. According to the City of College Station Zoning Ordinance, the minimum end island is 180 sq. ft. measurement of end islands is generally from the outside of the curb. Variances of 52 sq. ft. and 32 sq. ft. to the 180 sq. ft. end island requirement are being requested. The applicant wishes to receive variances to the end island requirement to allow for a full C /O, or Certificate of Occupancy, to be issued. The site in question is in the Wolf Pen Creek Zoning District. This is one of several special districts in the City that requires approval of site plans by a specific review board. In this case, there is a two step process, the Design Review Board (DRB) reviews the site plan and the Planning & Zoning Commission (P &Z), approves the site plan. ZBA Minutes July 10. 2001 Page 1 of 4 The applicant came in last year and went through the site plan review process and gained approval of their proposed site plan. The original plan met the end island requirements. In the course of site inspections conducted during the development and building of the project, it was discovered that multiple changes had been made to the site, without the approval or knowledge of staff or the appropriate boards. In fact, the end island adjacent to the entrance of the drive -thru was installed in compliance with the originally approved site plan, but was later removed and rebuilt to less than the City standard. The widening of the exit of the drive -thru, and subsequent reduction of that end island, increases the number of vehicles, which may come into conflict at that location. The remaining site changes are site planning or aesthetics issues. Nonetheless, staff cannot issue a full Certificate of Occupancy if the approved site plan is not followed. The applicant is therefore required to go before the appropriate boards to gain approval of all the changes. In an effort to work with the applicant, the City did grant a temporary 60 day CIO, with the condition that all necessary approvals must be granted or the site must be brought into compliance with the originally approved site plan. The DRB has reviewed the issues over which they have purview and its recommending approval of them to the P &Z. The P&Z will hear the case after this Board makes its determination on the end island variance request. Thus, the applicant is requesting variances of 52 sq. ft. (28 %), for the island at the exit of the drive -thru, and 32 sq. ft. (17 %), for the island at the entry to the drive -thru, from the 180 sq. ft. end island requirement. The special condition stated by the applicant is, "to accommodate the efficient flow of traffic into and out of the drive -thru lane ". The applicant states their hardship as, "poor flow of traffic thru the drive -thru lane. Unnecessary cars waiting to get into and out of drive -thru lane ". °.r Alternatives found: 1. Redesign the end islands to meet the requirements, either by meeting the original site plan or an alternative that meets the City standard. 2. Request a reduced parking requirement to allow more room for the end islands. Mr. Birdwell asked how many parking spaces are required for the restaurant and how many actually exist. Ms. Jimmerson replied that there are 39 spaces required and there are 70 present. They could loose several parking spaces and still meet the required parking requirement. Ms. Jimmerson stated that when Office Max was built there was additional parking built. Ms. Jimmerson added that there is adequate landscaping on the site and it would not be affected by the change in the size of the end islands. Mr. Goss asked is the DRB in favor of the changes to the end islands. Ms. Jimmerson replied that the DRB can review the aesthetics of the islands but they do not have the authority to grant a variance to the end island requirement. Mr. Goss noted that it is written in the staff report that the DRB has reviewed the issues over which they have purview and it is recommending approval of them to P &Z. Mr. Goss asked is it the DRB's recommendation to P &Z to approve the changes. Ms. Jimmerson replied that they are in favor of the changes that went before them to review, but the end island requirement and a reduction in the end island requirement is not something they have the authority to review. ZBA Minutes July 10, 2001 Page 2 of 4 I The other items such as sidewalks, landscaping, and the widening of the driveway was in the DRB's purview and authority. Mr. Goss asked if the DRB had any objection to the end islands. Ms. Jimmerson replied that they reviewed them along with several other items with staffs intent to get their recommendation on aesthetics and they recommended approval on everything including the end islands. *ft, Mr. Goss asked Ms. Jimmerson if she knew why the changes were made in the field. Ms. Jimmerson replied that she would have to leave that question for the applicant. She understood they had reasons for each of the changes made but why they did them without talking to staff she could not address. Acting Chairman Lewis opened the public hearing for those wanting to speak in favor of the request. Bob R. Davis, the applicant & owner, stepped before the Board and was sworn in by Acting Chairman Lewis. Mr. Davis told the Board that the two islands were constructed without knowledge on their part that there was a requirement of 180 -sq. ft. per island. Mr. Davis explained that the changes started with the widening of the drive -thru. The reason the changes and need came about is due to the sandwich line being added to the menu. It requires about 5 minutes preparation time for a sandwich. In order not to block the drive -thru they wanted to have the customer pull forward and their food would be brought to them. The widening would allow traffic to go around. Mr. Davis told the Board that there was a lot of dialog with the city and when he discussed the widening of the drive -thru and the need for it there was not a mention of the island at the end. When Office Max was built as one project, all the parking lot and parking spaces where in place and a pad site was left. In order for the drive -thru to be added they had to make the changes. Mr. Davis added that he could understand how it looked as if the islands were constructed and then removed. Mr. Davis referred to a handout given to the Board Members and explained the islands and landscaping. Mr. Davis explained that 35-40 of their business goes through the drive -thru and they are trying to make it as easy as possible. Mr. Davis ended by telling the Board that they in no way tried to circumvent the parking islands and he spared no expense to contribute to the overall appearance of Wolf Pen Creek. He understands the area as being 'a focal point for the community. Mr. Goss questioned the 70 parking spaces available and the requirement for only 39. Mr. Davis told the Board when Office Max was developed it was all one piece of land and that included the property Fazoli's is on now. The Fazoli's property was subdivided so it could be sold separately. Mr. Davis told the Board that they do have a parking agreement with Office Max. Mr. Goss asked Mr. Davis if the Board was to deny the variance what would it cost him to replace the end islands to the city standard. Mr. Davis replied his best estimate would be 2 to 3 thousand dollars. Mr. Goss asked Mr. Davis if the DRB had any problem with the size of the islands. Mr. Davis replied that obviously the DRB's concern was the landscaping. When the DRB made the recommendation to the ZBA to grant the variance they were aware that the islands did not meet city code. With no one else stepping forward to speak in favor or opposition of the variance, Acting Chairman Lewis closed the public hearing ZBA Minutes July 10, 2001 Page 3 of 4 ti Mr. Goss asked city staff if they have evidence that the islands were built correctly and then changed because the applicant stated that they were not built correctly to begin with. Ms. Jimmerson replied that she based her report on information she had received from the inspector. � Acting Chairman Lewis asked Ms. Jimmerson if the DRB was making a recommendation to the ZBA or just to P &Z. Ms. Jimmerson replied that this issue was brought up after the primary concerns of DRB were addressed. A motion was made that they would recommend approval to the ZBA, P &Z and anyone who would have authority over the issue. The ordinance intent was left for the ZBA to decide. Acting Chairman Lewis stated that the DRB was aware that the decision was then directed to the ZBA. Ms. Jimmerson replied that was correct. Mr. Birdwell made the motion to deny a variance to the parking island requirements from the terms of this ordinance as it will be contrary to the public interest due to the lack of any special conditions, and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would not result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant, and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done. Mr. Goss seconded the motion. Mr. Birdwell stated that there is no way under the rules of the Board that this variance can be granted. The only hardship is financial. This can be resolved very easily by eliminating one parking space and moving a curb over Mr. Goss stated that he struggled to find a hardship other than financial himself. Acting Chairman Lewis stated that the site is beautiful. There is not much to be gained by the city for denying the variance other than the Board has rules they have to follow. Acting Chairman Lewis called for the vote. The Board voted (5 -0) to deny the variance. AGENDA ITEM 5: No items were discussed. AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Future Agenda Items. Adjourn. Mr. Goss made the motion to adjourn. APPROVED: Dick Birdwell, Acting Chairman 8/7/01 A ZBA Minutes July 10, 2001 Page 4 of 4